Most of what I write is for students, so my vote goes to READABILITY and
CLARITY, unless:
1. The non-obvious answer is so neat it can't be resisted. (*But then it
should include in-line comments to help the reader over the non-obvious
spots.*) And it should never include those comic strip expletives
##.@!%\&@#1#2<>><!&!! so admired in Champaign (except the postfixes // and
/. , which help readability). In particular, PURE FUNCTIONS should NEVER
be exposed in public.
2. The timing is so bad that a human notices it on one execution.
3. It is an item destined for multiple reuse, where timing is a legitimate
issue. But even here, two versions should be given: one readable, the
other coded to shave off the microseconds.
> This is just a question that I have been wondering about. Frequently
>when a problem is posed on this group, the way the "best" solution is
>defined is by timing alone. I have always thought one of the appeals about
>MMA is how naturally a solution flows from the typical pencil and paper
>approach. Frequently this doesn't lead to the fastest solution but
>definitely the easiest to read. When the solution takes advantage of a
>more cryptic technique, the readability suffers. How does everyone feel
>about using timing as the primary yard stick? How often do you run into
>calculations where timing becomes a problem?
>
> Just for my curiosity,
> Daryl